B. SUBBARAMA NAIDU versus B. SLDDAMMA NAIDU & OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 05-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Akbar I( hun 
Alant J<han 
v. 
LTninn of fudia 
Sarkar ]. 
April 5. 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(l962J 
and thereafter dispose it of by such order as the deci-
sion of the Central Government may justify. There 
will be no ordrr as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
Case Remitted. 
B. SUBBARAMA NAIDU 
v. 
B. SlDDAMMA NAIDU & OTHERS 
(K. 8UBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J.B.. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Arbitration--Order of reference-If must specify date within 
which the award is to be made--Award-Validity-W hen can be set 
aside--Arbitration Act, I940 (10 of I940), ss. 23(I), 30. 
The questions for determination in the appeal were whetqer 
the award in question was invalid, (1) by reason of the court 
failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of s. 23(1) of 
the Arbitration Act, 1940, that the time within which the award 
is to be made, must be specified in the order, and (2) whether 
the arbitrator was in error in allotting to the appellant less than 
half share in the properties. 
Held, that under s. 23(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it is 
imperative that the time lor making the award must be fixed; 
but that does not mean that where the court omits to specify 
the time in the order of reference and does so elsewhere in the 
proceedings, the reference is invalid. Consequently, in a case 
where the order sheet of the court read with the order of refer-
ence made it clear that the arbitrator was to file his award by 
the date to which the suit was adjourned, it could not be said 
that the section had not been complied with. 
Raja Har Narain Singh v. Chaudhrain Bhagwant Kuar 
(1891) L.I<. 18 I.A. 55, referred lo. 
Held, further, that the award could not be said to be bad 
on the face of it and "otherwise invalid" merely because the 
appellant had 1eceived less than his due share. The court 
cannot interfere with the findings of an arbitrator based on the 
best of his judgment unless it is shown that he has acted dis-
honestly. 
F 
I 
• / 
• 
' 
' 
.. 
, 
' 
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
785 
, ·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
12 of 1958. 
Civil Appeal No. 
Subbarania r..r aidu 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
v. 
order dated April 6, 1953, of the Madras High Court'iddamma Naidu 
in Appeal against order No. 54 of 1949. 
S. T. Desai and K. R. Choudhri, for the appellant. 
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and T. V. R. Tatacha1"i, for 
respondents Nos. 1 to 5. 
1961. 
April 5. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUDHOLKAR, J.-In this appeal by special leave 
Mudholkar ]. 
from the decision of the High Court of Madras the 
appellant challenges the validity of an award made 
by an arbitrator appointed by the Court in a snit 
for partition and recovery of possession filed by the 
appellant of his half share in certain properties upon 
three grounds. The first ground is that the reference 
to arbitration was itself invalid because the Court 
failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of 
s. 23, sub-s. (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 
1940) in the matter of specifying the time within 
which the award was to be made. The second ground 
is that the award was filed in Court by the arbitrator 
after the expiry of the time subsequently granted by 
the court for filing the award. The third ground is 
that the arbitrator erred in allotting to the appellant 
less than half the share in the properties in snit. In 
our opinion there is no substance in any of these 
grounds. 
It is undoubtedly true that sub-s. (1) of s. 23 re-
quires that an order thereunder referring a dispute to 
an arbitrator must specify the time within which the 
award is to be made. What is imperative is the fixa-
tion of the time for making the award. But it does 
not follow that where the Court omits to specify the 
time in the order of reference but does so elsewhere 
in the proceedings, the reference is bad. In Raja Har 
Narain Singh v. Chaudhrain Bhagawant Kuar and 
another (1) which was a case under the Code of Civil 
. (I) (1891) L.R, 18 I.A. 55· 
99 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
I96I 
Procedure, 1882, the Privy Council had to consider 
S bb -- " ·a the provisions of s. 508 which correspond to those of 
u Mama "ai u 
23(1) f h A b' 
· 
A 
Wh'l 
' 
' 
v. 
s. 
o t e r 1trat10n 
ct. 
1 e pomtmg out 
Siddamma 
Naidu that the provisions of s. 508 are mandatory and im-
perative they held that though the failure of the 
Mudhotkar .I· Court to specify the time for making the award in 
the order of reference was not a strict compliance of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.